were accustomed to a state of things in which metropolitical sees were much more plentiful than they had hitherto been in the West.1

NOTE 64 (see note 2 on p. 149). The metropolitical system was introduced into Spain before 386.—In February, 385, Pope Siricius, who had been recently consecrated to the see of Rome, wrote a letter to Himerius, the Metropolitan of Tarraco in Spain, in which he replied to certain questions which Himerius had addressed to Siricius' predecessor, Damasus. In the last chapter of this letter Siricius requests Himerius to make known its contents "to all our fellow bishops" [in Spain], and he begs “that those things which by a salutary regulation have been determined by us, may be sent with a covering letter from thee, not only to the bishops who are established in thine own province (in tua dioecesi), but also to all the bishops of Carthaginensis, Baetica, Lusitania, and Gallaecia." In the same paragraph Siricius implies that Himerius has held the see of Tarraco for a long while. The whole passage makes it perfectly clear that the province of Tarraconensis had a metropolitan in 385, and that the sphere of that metropolitan's jurisdiction did not extend outside the limits of the civil province. It is hardly possible to throw doubt on the conclusion that, if one of the five Spanish provinces had at that time a metropolitan, then each of the other four provinces was organized in a similar manner.

NOTE 65 (see p. 151). Spain seems to have been administered by a proconsul during the later years of Gratian's reign.-I wish in this note to justify my statement that from about the year 370 to the early part of the year 383, or at least to the latter part of 382, Spain was administered by a proconsul.

Sulpicius Severus, speaking of Priscillian and his followers after their return to Spain from Italy in 382, says: "Haeretici corrupto Volventio proconsule vires suas confirmaverant." And a little further on in the same paragraph Sulpicius, speaking of the action taken by the Priscillianists a few months later, says, "Haeretici suis artibus, grandi pecunia Macedonio data, obtinent ut imperiali auctoritate praefecto erepta cognitio Hispaniarum vicario (nam jam proconsulem habere desierant) . . .” Here, unfortunately, there is a slight lacuna in the text. However, it is clear that, if we are to believe Sulpicius Severus, a Vicar had been substituted for a Proconsul in Spain, either in the latter part of 382 or

6

1 There are no signs of either Milan or Aquileia being metropolitical at the time of the Council of Sardica.

2 P. L., xiii. 1146.

3" Pro antiquitate sacerdotii tui."

Hist. Sacr., ii. 49, P. L., xx. 157.

5 Ubi supra.

It seems very difficult to believe that Sulpicius Severus made a mistake when he committed himself to this categorical statement about the change in the government of Spain. He had probably reached man's estate when the asserted change took place, and he was living in the neighbouring country of Gaul. He was by profession a lawyer, and was also a historian, and he belonged to what may be called the governing class, as he married a wealthy woman of consular rank. His statement was made in his Historia Sacra, written about twenty years after

early in 383. The historian gives the note of time in the next sentence, where he says, "Jam tum rumor incesserat Clementem Maximum intra Britannias sumpsisse imperium ac brevi in Gallias erupturum." 1

There is a law of Gratian's, dated from Milan on May 26, 382, which is addressed "ad Proconsules, Vicarios, omnesque Rectores." The law, emanating as it did from Gratian, was intended for the Western empire. Ordinarily there was only one proconsul in the West, the Proconsul of Africa. The plural "Proconsules" shows that in May, 382, there was more than one Western proconsul. This fact supplies a strong confirmation of the statement made by Sulpicius Severus.

A further confirmation of the fact that in the summer of 382 there was more than one proconsul in the West, may be derived from the expression, "sive a proconsulibus," in Gratian's rescript, Ordinariorum sententiae, addressed to Aquilinus, the Vicarius Urbis. The expression occurs in the passage which I have quoted in the note on p. 146. The rescript has in view only the Western empire, and it belongs, as I hope to show, to the summer of the year 382.3

We have convincing proof that in May, 383, there was, as Sulpicius Severus would lead us to suppose, a vicar in Spain; for on May 27, 383,* Gratian addressed a law from Padua to Marinianus, the "Vicarius Hispaniarum."

The Code supplies us with evidence of vicars in Spain from 336 to 370. It supplies us with no evidence of their presence there between 370 and 383; and it is my opinion that at any rate during the latter part of that period proconsuls were substituted in Spain for vicars. This is also the view taken by Godefroy (Gothofredus). In his commentary on Cod. Theod., ix. I, 14, he says that between the time of Constantine and the time of Valentinian II. "totius Hispaniae administrationem quater variasse." 115 He adds, "Primum scilicet sub Comitibus ea fuit, non ad annum usque Dom. 332, ut docet lex 6 Cod. Just. de servis fugit., vel ad A.D. 334 usque, ut docet lex 3 supr. de maternis bonis [Cod. Theod., viii. 18, 3] verum ad annum usque 336, lex 8 de naviculariis [Cod. Theod., xiii. 5, 8]. Secundo: Mox Vicariis ea paruit, jam ab ann. 336 ad ann. 370 usque ut ostendit lex 5 [?6] supr. de sponsalibus [Cod. Theod., iii. 5, 6], et lex 2 supr. de tabulariis [Cod. Theod., viii. 2, 2]. Tertio: Post annum 370 Proconsules habere coepit: Itaque et lex 11 infr. de medicis [Cod. Theod., xiii. 3, 11], quae data est A.D. 376, docet unam tantum Galliarum dioecesim tum sub Praefecto praetorio fuisse : et ejusdem the change occurred. He was specially well informed about the affairs of the

Priscillianists.

1 Maximus seems to have invaded Gaul in May, 383. Gratian was still in Italy on June 17 in that year. Compare Rauschen (Jahrbücher, p. 142), Tillemont (Histoire des Empereurs, edit. 1701, v. 177), and Goyau (Chronologie de l'Empire Romain, p. 577).

2 Cod. Theod., xi. 6, 1.

See Excursus I. on pp. 510-528, and the Chronological Table on p. 542. Cod. Theod., ix. I, 14. In Haenel's edition of the Code this law is dated, "vi. Kal. Jun."; and this reading agrees with the result at which Tillemont arrives (Empereurs, v. 722, 723).

6

Codex Theodosianus, ed. Ritter, tom. iii. p. 22.

Godefroy's argument, derived from Cod. Theod. xiii. 3, 11, seems to me to be less convincing than the others which he uses in this passage.

Gratiani et Valentiniani Jun., A.D. 382, constitutio exstat 'ad Proconsules, Vicarios, omnesque Rectores' lege unica infra de superindicto [Cod. Theod., xi. 6, 1], cum alias in occidente unus tantum Africae proconsul esset. Quarto: Mox (post decennium circiter ab ann. D. 383) ad Vicarios reditum est, ut haec lex collata cum insigni Severi Sulpicii loco (Hist. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. 49) neque dum intellecto, ostendit." And then Godefroy goes on to quote the passages from Sulpicius' Historia Sacra which have been cited in the beginning of this note.1

NOTE 66 (see p. 155). In the first two editions of this book I expressed the opinion 2 that the Roman synod's 3 petition, in the section which prays for the re-enactment of Valentinian's rules for the trial of bishops, dealt only with the case of the bishops of Italy and Illyricum, but that Gratian by his rescript to Aquilinus enlarged the scope of his father's edict and extended the range of the incidence of the law to the whole Western empire. I based this theory on the fact that in its enumeration of the officials who would have to enforce the law, the petition only mentions the Prefects of the praetorium of Italy and the Vicarius of Rome; whereas Gratian's rescript makes a much fuller enumeration, mentioning, as it does, the pretorian Prefects of Gaul and of Italy, together with the proconsuls and vicars.

I now think that the theory of Gratian having enlarged the scope of Valentinian's edict is not supported by the facts. The synod's mention of the Prefects of Italy and the Vicarius of Rome occurs in a clause of the petition which deals with the nearer regions, that is, as I have shown, with the suburbicarian vicariate. The synod per incuriam makes no provision for the case of a recalcitrant suburbicarian bishop who should have found his way into Gaul or Spain or Britain, and who should need to be coerced by the local magistrates of those more distant parts and sent by them under safe custody to Rome. But in a later clause of the petition, in which the synod deals with the case of bishops whose dioceses were situated outside the suburbicarian vicariate, the petitioners ask that an accused bishop may be brought for trial before his metropolitan, "per locorum judicia." I see now what I did not see, when I was preparing the earlier editions of this book, namely, that the italicized phrase, per locorum judicia, refers to the tribunals of the great magistrates of the empire, whether prefects, proconsuls or vicars, who within

The reader may also be referred to Godefroy's commentary on Cod. Theod., xiii. 3, 11 (Codex Theodosianus, ed. Ritter, 1741, tom. v. p. 47). 2 See pp. 156, 157 of the first two editions.

I refer to the Roman synod under Damasus, to which I now assign the date 382, and which addressed to Gratian and Valentinian II. the synodical petition, Et hoc gloriae vestrae.

↑ The passages in the Roman petition and in the rescript of Gratian, to which I am here referring, will be found quoted in the note on pp. 145, 146.

5 See pp. 147, 150, 151.

66

Dr. Rivington, wrongly, as it seems to me, translates or paraphrases (Prim. Church, p. 241) the words, ad metropolitani per locorum judicia deducatur examen,' as follows, "the trial may be held before the metropolitan for local decision (per locorum judicia)," as if the judicia were the decisions of the metropolitan, whereas they are evidently the tribunals of the imperial officials. I must confess that I fell myself into the same mistake in the first two editions of this book. It may be

their several circumscriptions exercised jurisdiction in the more distant regions. So understood, the scope of the petition agrees with the scope of the rescript, a result which is a priori more probable.

It should be noticed that Gratian, who usually in the wording of his rescript follows closely the expressions used in the petition, here gives a different turn to the sentence, and empowers the courts of the prefects, vicars, and proconsuls all over the Western empire to deal with accused bishops whose sees were situated in the nearer regions, as well as with accused bishops whose sees were situated in the more distant regions. This correction of the synod's phraseology secured a more complete accomplishment of the synod's wishes and intentions.

NOTE 67 (see p. 166). On a passage in S. Jerome's treatise against Jovinian.-There is a passage in S. Jerome's treatise against Jovinian (lib. i. § 26, P. L., xxiii. 247) which has been curiously misunderstood, as if it favoured the Romanist view of S. Peter's relation to the other apostles, whereas in truth the passage, taken as a whole, is in thorough agreement with the ordinary Catholic teaching on that subject. S. Jerome is proving to Jovinian that S. John the Evangelist was a virgin disciple; and he says, "If he was not a virgin, let Jovinian explain why he was more beloved than the other apostles. But you reply that the Church is founded on Peter, though in another place the same is attributed to all the apostles, and all of them receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon them all; still, among the twelve one is therefore chosen, that by the appointment of a head an occasion of dissension may be taken away (schismatis tollatur occasio). But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder, lest one, who was still a young man and almost a boy, should be given precedence before men of mature age (progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur) ; and lest the good Master, who felt bound to remove from His disciples an occasion of strife (qui occasionem jurgii debuerat auferre discipulis), and who had also said to them, 'My peace I give unto you; peace I leave with you,' and who had also said, 'Whosoever would be great among you, let him be the least of all '-[lest He, I say,] should seem to furnish a cause of grudge against the young man whom He loved . . . Peter was an apostle, and John was an apostle, the first married, the second a virgin. But Peter was nothing else than an apostle (sed Petrus apostolus tantum); John was both an apostle, and an evangelist, and a prophet." The Romanists are accustomed to quote a few words out of this passage in order to show that in it S. Jerome taught the doctrine that S. Peter was (and by implication the reigning pope is) the divinely appointed centre and root of unity in the Church. They say that S. Jerome teaches that S. Peter was appointed a head, that “the occasion of schism might be removed." But, if S. Jerome had thought that S. Peter was invested with such a headship noted that Merenda interprets "per locorum judicia" in the same way as I have now been led to do (cf. Merend. de S. Damasi opusculis et gestis, cap. xvi. i., P. L., xiii. 206). One may compare the expression "ad judicia competentia" in the letter, Benedictus Deus of the Council of Aquileia (Ep. inter Ambrosianas x. § 8, P. L., xvi. 983).

as that, his whole argument would have crumbled to pieces. He wants to show the complete equality of the apostles in their relation to the Church. But if one of them had been appointed by our Lord the necessary centre of unity, that equality would have existed no longer. The solidity of the Church would not in that case be "equally established upon them all." S. Jerome, as a matter of fact, attributes to S. Peter a very different kind of headship. It is like the headship of the foreman in a jury, or like the headship of the Duke of Norfolk among our English peers. Such a headship, which is in fact a mere primacy of order, would not affect the equality of the apostles in their relation to the Church. The Romanist mistake has arisen from not noticing that S. Jerome, when he says that our Lord took away an occasion of dissension, is referring to the disputes which used to take place among the disciples as to which of them should be greatest. S. Jerome thinks that our Lord gave a primacy of order to one of the twelve that "an occasion of dissension might be taken away" (schismatis tollatur occasio); just as he also thinks that "the good Master" chose S. Peter, the elder, rather than S. John, the younger, to be the head, in order that He might remove another “ occasion of strife” (occasionem jurgii). It was no doubt the word "schisma" which caused the mistake. That word is sometimes used in the technical sense of schism. But it is also used, both in Latin and Greek, in the untechnical sense of dissension. For example, S. John uses the word σxíoua in three passages of his Gospel (S. John vii. 43; ix. 16; x. 19) ; and always in the sense of a dissension, or dispute, or angry division of opinion. In the Vulgate, S. Jerome has rendered the word σxíoμa by "dissensio" in S. John vii. 43 and in S. John x. 19; but in S. John ix. 16, where the sense is precisely the same, he has used the word "schisma." No one would suggest schism as the right English translation of S. Jerome's “schisma" in S. John ix. 16; it there plainly means dissension; and the whole argument requires that a similar meaning should be attributed to it in the treatise against Jovinian. In a letter to Evangelus (Ep. cxlvi., Opp., ed. Vallars., i. 1076) S. Jerome speaks of one among a body of presbyters being made a bishop "as a preventive against schism" (in schismatis remedium). Here the word "schismatis" has undoubtedly its technical meaning, schism. The sense of the word varies according to the context. It is worth noticing that S. Jerome wrote his treatise against Jovinian in the year 393, twelve years after the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, and eight years after his departure from Rome in considerable wrath with the Roman clergy. The admirable teaching on the equality of the apostles which is contained in this treatise, illustrates Mr. Gore's view that S. Jerome changed his tone about the position and privileges of the Roman bishop after the death of Damasus at the end of the year 384 (see Gore's Church and the Ministry, 1st edit., p. 172). Closer acquaintance with the local Roman Church seems to have led S. Jerome to reconsider some of the views which he had expressed in his letters to Damasus, and thus a remedy was provided for the somewhat papalizing tone which he had imbibed in Rome during his catechumenate. S. Jerome's faith was in fact purified, and brought up nearer to the normal level of the faith of the saints.